state courts – Page 25 – The Interdependent Third Branch

On transferring judges within a court system

Two remarkable, parallel stories broke this week, each involving the transfer of a state judge to another division within the court system. In Pennsylvania, Judge Lyris Younge was transferred from her longstanding seat in Philadelphia Family Court to the Court of Common Pleas Civil Division. It’s an odd move, given that Younge has almost no civil experience, and that the Civil Division is typically a landing spot for the state’s most highly competent judges. Insiders speculate that the transfer was an administrative effort to “hide” Younge in the Civil Division until an ethics probe related to her (apparently obnoxious) behavior in the Family Court is resolved.

In an eerily similar move in New York, Judge Armando Montano was reassigned from his longstanding seat on the Bronx Criminal Part to the Bronx Domestic Violence Part–a change that Judge Montano has characterized as a “disguised punishment.” Montano argues that moving him from felony cases to domestic violence cases is essentially a demotion. The court administrator disagreed, claiming that it was a “routine administrative reassignment” and that the domestic violence cases that Montano would be handling are “complex.”

The players in both stories seem to be hiding key facts here. Surely there was something specific motivating the transfer to Judge Montano, who is nearing retirement, to an entirely different division. And surely there is some internal reason for transferring Judge Younge to a division in which she has virtually no experience. And those reasons must be significant, since the outcome in both cases is worse for the litigants who are now slated to appear before the judge. Bronx DV litigants can look forward to a disgruntled Judge Montano, who believes that he is above having to rule on their cases. And Philadelphia litigants can hold their breath over Judge Younge’s competence to decide their matters–not to mention her own anger over reassignment. The judges, of course, are keeping mum about their respective behaviors that led to the reassignments.

These incidents keenly demonstrate the complexity of organizational management within a court system. Unable to completely remove judges (who, for reasons of competence, ethics, temperament, or some combination of the three) should not be on the bench, court administrators have to resort to reassignment mechanisms to reduce ongoing problems. When the issues are made public, there is often little they can say. But we can surely read between the lines.

North Carolina legislature (again!) passes a law affecting judicial elections

When I started following North Carolina’s judicial election process a decade ago, it was a model for fair practices in directly electing the judiciary. Candidates ran in nonpartisan, publicly funded elections, and much of the chicanery that affects judicial elections in other states (like attack ads, targeted campaigns, and the like) was largely absent.

But sadly, the last couple of years has seen the North Carolina process turn into a clown show, as as aggressive state legislature tussles with the governor politicize the judiciary. Elections are once again partisan, and filling vacancies is ugly and political. And there is no sign of it ending anytime soon.

To wit: this week the state legislature passed a new law that appears to target a single candidate for the state supreme court. Chris Anglin is one of three candidates for an open seat on the court this fall. Anglin was registered as a Democrat until June, when he changed his party affiliation to Republican. The switch meant that two candidates would be identified as Republicans, and one as a Democrat, on the ballot.

Republican legislators, apparently concerned that the presence of two Republicans on the ballot would split the partisan vote and throw the election to the lone Democrat, hurriedly passed a bill that would remove any party designation for a candidate who switched parties less than 90 days before the election. As a result, Anglin would remain on the ballot, but without a party designation.

Republicans have couched the bill as a fair compromise to prevent the gaming of the election system. Democrats and Anglin are both crying foul. The question now is whether Governor Roy Cooper, a Democrat, will veto the bill.

West Virginia Supreme Court update

The West Virginia House Judiciary Committee continued its impeachment inquiry into the state supreme court this week, with particular focus on indicted former chief justice Allen Loughry. Thursday morning, the supreme court’s former court administrator is expected to testify.

Meanwhile, the state’s judicial ethics commission cleared three other justices in an investigation stemming from the court’s practice of ordering in working lunches on the taxpayer dime. There is no question that the practice was pervasive, but the state Judicial Investigation Commission (JIC) also concluded that it was “longstanding” and preceded the terms of the current justices. The JIC also concluded that the working lunches allowed the court to run more efficiently. The justices were admonished, however, that such practices should be reduced to writing to the policy is clear.

Texas judges warn of judicial emergency after surge of case filings

Judges in Collin County, Texas are requesting additional resources–in the form of more courts and/or judges–after a surge of case filings in recent years. The eleven district judges in the county received more than 2100 new cases each in the past year, and that number is expected to increase.

As the Dallas Morning News summarizes:

Based on the current caseload, judges who want to keep up can spend no more than 53 minutes on each case and must dispose of nine cases a day.

But that’s not realistic. A hearing just for temporary orders in a divorce case takes about an hour, the judges said. Spending three days on a trial means having to find the equivalent of 26 other cases that require no time.

An update on the West Virginia Supreme Court impeachment probe

Last Thursday, the West Virginia House Judiciary Committee began hearings that may lead to the impeachment of one or more of the state’s supreme court justices. The hearings were precipitated by accusations of rampant overspending and other ethical violations by Chief Justice Allen Loughry, who was indicted on 22 counts of fraud and other malfeasance by a federal grand jury.

Thursday’s hearings focused on a now-infamous $32,000 couch, part of an alleged $360,000 in taxpayer money that Loughry spent on his office between 2013 and his suspension last year. The supreme court’s deputy director of security testified that the couch was moved from the courthouse to Loughry’s home, and that after Loughry was suspended from his duties he contacted the security office to help him move the couch (and a historic Cass Gilbert desk) again–this time to a warehouse, in order to avoid ongoing media scrutiny. Other court officials testified about Loughry’s improper use of state vehicles and the extraordinary remodeling of Loughry’s chambers.

Legislators also questioned the court’s public information officer, who had previously told a reporter that “the Court has a longstanding practice of providing Justices an opportunity to establish a home office,” including the use of court furniture. The PIO explained that she was told about the alleged practice by Loughry, and deferred to him in light of his position and experience. In fact, no such policy exists.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee planned their own tour of the supreme court offices last Friday, but cancelled after the Court refused to allow media and other observers to join the legislators.

There will be more to come in this ugly situation. Stay tuned.

Chicago judge settles lawsuit over court layoffs

Late last year, the Cook County (Ill.) Board ordered the termination of nearly 180 county court employees, in light of rampant financial problems throughout the county. That action spurred Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans to file a lawsuit against the Board to enjoin the layoffs. Chief Judge Evans argued that even though the Board had power to set the courts’ budget, it did not have the authority to target individual employees for layoffs.

The Lake County Circuit Court agreed in December, issuing a temporary restraining order against the county to prevent the layoffs. Now, nearly eight months later, the parties have reached a settlement.

Both sides are claiming victory. The Board is saying that the settlement amount is “much lower than what was initially demanded” and that it will promote efficiencies in the court system. Chief Judge Evans points to the loss of only 22 jobs (as opposed the the initial 180), and his belief that “the lawsuit made clear that the county board had no authority to lay off court employees.”

West Virginia legislature clears path to investigate state judiciary

The West Virginia House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill that would allow the House Committee on the Judiciary to investigate allegations of malpractice and criminal activity by members of the state Supreme Court of Appeals. The investigation could lead to the impeachment of one or more of the Supreme Court justices.

More on the allegations against the Justices, and especially former Chief Justice Allen Loughry (who was recently indicted by a federal grand jury on 22 counts of fraud and other malfeasance) here and here.

An update on Florida’s judicial vacancy lawsuit

Last week I noted the lawsuit filed against Florida Governor Rick Scott by Jacksonville attorney David Trotti. Scott has moved to fill several seats on the state bench, which opened due to curiously timed judicial retirements. Trotti alleges that the retirements create a vacancy for such a short period that the seats should be filled by popular election.

The trial court ruled in favor of Trotti, which would have prevented the Governor from filling the seat. But the Scott Administration appealed, which automatically stayed the decision and once again enabled the Governor to appoint a new judge. Trotti convinced the trial court to vacate the stay, but Scott then convinced the appellate court to reinstate the stay.

Trotti has now appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the stay (and a Scott appointment) will eliminate the rights of citizens to vote for the judicial candidate of their choice. In his petition, he noted that several judges have times their retirements to create just enough of vacancy to permit the Governor to claim the right to fill the seat through appointment. As I noted in my earlier post, I am no fan of judicial elections, but this certainly smells like people are gaming the system.

Are more judges arming themselves in self-defense?

This story out of Toledo suggests that the answer is yes.

This trend is not entirely surprising, given the high-profile, violent attacks on judges in recent months. But it’s not at all clear whether–and how–concealed carry by judges would affect the regular work of courthouse security staff.

An interesting, and somewhat sad, development.